Why nonexistence of God is an impossibility

[Anna the Seeker]

I promised to shed some light over my theist philosophy, so here goes.

Rather than saying directly "God exists", it tries to prove it the opposite way: "It's impossible for God to not exist".

----------

For me the brain represents the material link between the body and soul. DNA is also material, and materia in itself doesn't have the intelligence to create life and the perfect balance and symbiosis in the ecosystems.

Soul is more important than materia for the existence as a whole. If there was not even one soul ever, not even time or the void alone that the universe floats in would have existed because there would have been nothing and no one to detect their existence, and thus they would have existed for nothing.


The existence and continuity of souls is thus a necessity for existence of everything else. It gives universe a reason and a meaning.

I do appreciate science as it tries to feed our hunger for knowledge, which is definitely a noble goal. But Big Bang theory and the evolution theory are still just that – theories, because they don't have all the supportive evidence to make them 100% (of the) fact yet.


The Big Bang theory only starts from the point where the materia already existed, and does not much comment on where the energy came from to create the materia into the void for the Big Bang to happen later on. On top of it, no astronomer is able to explain where the center point of the great explosion located.


For the evolution theory to work, there must be a mechanism in living cells which adds more DNA to the DNA chain. But no one has been able to prove that yet, and mutation only changes or swaps DNA, it doesn't add it. Scientiests are also unable to explain the birth of a nucleus in a cell.


Scientists do admit that there must be an organizer which keeps all the materia in proper order and the nature on this planet in balance, but doesn't straight out name the organizer as a designer or soul, or in other words, God. That's because science refrains to comment on beliefs or religion to stay as neutral as possible, and only examines the observable, material world.


Refraining from commenting the subject doesn't mean, however, that science denies the existence of souls, or God. That's what people choose to do, not science itself.

Besides, I would rather believe that there is a God and then find out there isn't, than not believe in God and then find out there is.

 

[True Scotsman]

I promised to shed some light over my theist philosophy, so here goes.

Rather than saying directly "God exists", it tries to prove it the opposite way: "It's impossible for God to not exist".

----------

For me the brain represents the material link between the body and soul. DNA is also material, and materia in itself doesn't have the intelligence to create life and the perfect balance and symbiosis in the ecosystems.

Soul is more important than materia for the existence as a whole. If there was not even one soul ever, not even time or the void alone that the universe floats in would have existed because there would have been nothing and no one to detect their existence, and thus they would have existed for nothing.


The existence and continuity of souls is thus a necessity for existence of everything else. It gives universe a reason and a meaning.

I do appreciate science as it tries to feed our hunger for knowledge, which is definitely a noble goal. But Big Bang theory and the evolution theory are still just that – theories, because they don't have all the supportive evidence to make them 100% (of the) fact yet.


The Big Bang theory only starts from the point where the materia already existed, and does not much comment on where the energy came from to create the materia into the void for the Big Bang to happen later on. On top of it, no astronomer is able to explain where the center point of the great explosion located.


For the evolution theory to work, there must be a mechanism in living cells which adds more DNA to the DNA chain. But no one has been able to prove that yet, and mutation only changes or swaps DNA, it doesn't add it. Scientiests are also unable to explain the birth of a nucleus in a cell.


Scientists do admit that there must be an organizer which keeps all the materia in proper order and the nature on this planet in balance, but doesn't straight out name the organizer as a designer or soul, or in other words, God. That's because science refrains to comment on beliefs or religion to stay as neutral as possible, and only examines the observable, material world.


Refraining from commenting the subject doesn't mean, however, that science denies the existence of souls, or God. That's what people choose to do, not science itself.

Besides, I would rather believe that there is a God and then find out there isn't, than not believe in God and then find out there is.

I think your reasoning is circular. You are assuming that life had to be created by an intelligence, therefore you are assuming the very thing that is at issue in your premises. You might want to look into the recent work by John Sutherland who has shown that RNA can form spontaneously from much simpler precursor molecules, which themselves form spontaneously from simpler molecules, and can act as its own catalyst to replicate itself. Scientists are demonstrating that at least some of the steps needed to form a very simple cell including a phospholipid membrane, can happen naturally and easily without any intelligent guidance. The order we perceive is the result of natural laws that are inherent in the universe. Things act in certain ways and only in those ways so that there is no possibility of a disorderly universe. The name of this organizer is the law of identity.

You also treat the soul or consciousness as an entity in itself as opposed to what we observe, that consciousness is an action of certain types of entities. This error is a direct result of a primacy of consciousness metaphysics which is demonstrably false. We have trillions upon trillions of observations of the fact that existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness. There is not one example of a consciousness which holds metaphysical primacy over its objects as gods are proposed to do. The fact is there is no alternative but to imagine such a thing as a consciousness that enjoys primacy. I think your reasoning is fallacious in the extreme. You are begging the question and committing the fallacy of the stolen concept.

Contrary to being necessary, the primacy of existence alone proves that gods are impossible, at least as the concept is informed by theists.

I'll let someone else who is much more informed about genetics deal with your assertions about genetics and evolution.

 

[Davian]

I promised to shed some light over my theist philosophy, so here goes.

Rather than saying directly "God exists", it tries to prove it the opposite way: "It's impossible for God to not exist".

----------

For me the brain represents the material link between the body and soul. DNA is also material, and materia in itself doesn't have the intelligence to create life and the perfect balance and symbiosis in the ecosystems.

Soul is more important than materia for the existence as a whole. If there was not even one soul ever, not even time or the void alone that the universe floats in would have existed because there would have been nothing and no one to detect their existence, and thus they would have existed for nothing.


The existence and continuity of souls is thus a necessity for existence of everything else. It gives universe a reason and a meaning.

I do appreciate science as it tries to feed our hunger for knowledge, which is definitely a noble goal. But Big Bang theory and the evolution theory are still just that – theories, because they don't have all the supportive evidence to make them 100% (of the) fact yet.


The Big Bang theory only starts from the point where the materia already existed, and does not much comment on where the energy came from to create the materia into the void for the Big Bang to happen later on. On top of it, no astronomer is able to explain where the center point of the great explosion located.


For the evolution theory to work, there must be a mechanism in living cells which adds more DNA to the DNA chain. But no one has been able to prove that yet, and mutation only changes or swaps DNA, it doesn't add it. Scientiests are also unable to explain the birth of a nucleus in a cell.


Scientists do admit that there must be an organizer which keeps all the materia in proper order and the nature on this planet in balance, but doesn't straight out name the organizer as a designer or soul, or in other words, God. That's because science refrains to comment on beliefs or religion to stay as neutral as possible, and only examines the observable, material world.


Refraining from commenting the subject doesn't mean, however, that science denies the existence of souls, or God. That's what people choose to do, not science itself.

Arguments from ignorance and incredulity, therefore gods, but not just any god, your particular "God".

Besides, I would rather believe that there is a God and then find out there isn't, than not believe in God and then find out there is.

Now, how do you know you have the right god?

 

[FreedByte]

I promised to shed some light over my theist philosophy, so here goes.

Rather than saying directly "God exists", it tries to prove it the opposite way: "It's impossible for God to not exist".

Your argumentation could be used to support deism probably more than it can be used to support theism.

Also, proving that there is a first mover doesn't prove that any one religion is correct.

 

[variant]

I promised to shed some light over my theist philosophy, so here goes.

Rather than saying directly "God exists", it tries to prove it the opposite way: "It's impossible for God to not exist".

Ok. Let's look at it.

For me the brain represents the material link between the body and soul. DNA is also material, and materia in itself doesn't have the intelligence to create life and the perfect balance and symbiosis in the ecosystems.

Unsupported Assertion. Souls exist. Mind Body dualism.

Soul is more important than materia for the existence as a whole. If there was not even one soul ever, not even time or the void alone that the universe floats in would have existed because there would have been nothing and no one to detect their existence, and thus they would have existed for nothing.

Unsupported Assertion. Souls are important.

The existence and continuity of souls is thus a necessity for existence of everything else. It gives universe a reason and a meaning.

Unsupported Assertion. Souls exist again and give the universe meaning.

I do appreciate science as it tries to feed our hunger for knowledge, which is definitely a noble goal. But Big Bang theory and the evolution theory are still just that – theories, because they don't have all the supportive evidence to make them 100% (of the) fact yet.

Science is merely a theory and souls are facts?

You obviously demand a greater evidence from science than you do for your own preferred metaphysics.

You haven't shown that the nonexistence of God is an impossibility just that you prefer a metaphysics where it does. We already know that you are a theist.

Why isn't "souls don't exist" a possibility?

The Big Bang theory only starts from the point where the materia already existed, and does not much comment on where the energy came from to create the materia into the void for the Big Bang to happen later on. On top of it, no astronomer is able to explain where the center point of the great explosion locate

We don't know. Inserting a therefore God is just an argument from ignorance.

For the evolution theory to work, there must be a mechanism in living cells which adds more DNA to the DNA chain. But no one has been able to prove that yet, and mutation only changes or swaps DNA, it doesn't add it. Scientiests are also unable to explain the birth of a nucleus in a cell.

The bold is simply incorrect. Painfully so. Many mutations are capable of copying existing information and adding it to the genome which would then be free to change as the original allele would still be there, still preforming the original function.

Scientists do admit that there must be an organizer which keeps all the materia in proper order and the nature on this planet in balance, but doesn't straight out name the organizer as a designer or soul, or in other words, God. That's because science refrains to comment on beliefs or religion to stay as neutral as possible, and only examines the observable, material world.

Refraining from commenting the subject doesn't mean, however, that science denies the existence of souls, or God. That's what people choose to do, not science itself.

Please cite your sources and the relevant research. I have never seen a scientist say any such thing.

 

[madaz]

Let's say for arguments sake one god does indeed exist.

How would you identify which god it is?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I promised to shed some light over my theist philosophy, so here goes.

Rather than saying directly "God exists", it tries to prove it the opposite way: "It's impossible for God to not exist".

----------

For me the brain represents the material link between the body and soul. DNA is also material, and materia in itself doesn't have the intelligence to create life and the perfect balance and symbiosis in the ecosystems.

Soul is more important than materia for the existence as a whole. If there was not even one soul ever, not even time or the void alone that the universe floats in would have existed because there would have been nothing and no one to detect their existence, and thus they would have existed for nothing.


The existence and continuity of souls is thus a necessity for existence of everything else. It gives universe a reason and a meaning.

These assertions require additional support. What reason is there to suppose that there is a soul in the supernatural sense?

I do appreciate science as it tries to feed our hunger for knowledge, which is definitely a noble goal. But Big Bang theory and the evolution theory are still just that – theories, because they don't have all the supportive evidence to make them 100% (of the) fact yet.

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

The Big Bang theory only starts from the point where the materia already existed, and does not much comment on where the energy came from to create the materia into the void for the Big Bang to happen later on. On top of it, no astronomer is able to explain where the center point of the great explosion located.

For the evolution theory to work, there must be a mechanism in living cells which adds more DNA to the DNA chain. But no one has been able to prove that yet, and mutation only changes or swaps DNA, it doesn't add it. Scientiests are also unable to explain the birth of a nucleus in a cell.

Scientists do admit that there must be an organizer which keeps all the materia in proper order and the nature on this planet in balance, but doesn't straight out name the organizer as a designer or soul, or in other words, God. That's because science refrains to comment on beliefs or religion to stay as neutral as possible, and only examines the observable, material world.

Refraining from commenting the subject doesn't mean, however, that science denies the existence of souls, or God. That's what people choose to do, not science itself.

These are mostly arguments from ignorance.

Besides, I would rather believe that there is a God and then find out there isn't, than not believe in God and then find out there is.

Why?

 

[Golden Yak]

Why worship a God who's going to give people a hard time for not believeing he's real while they're alive?

Do you think that's reasonable? Or are you just scared?

 

[quatona]

I promised to shed some light over my theist philosophy, so here goes.

Rather than saying directly "God exists", it tries to prove it the opposite way: "It's impossible for God to not exist".

It´s impossible for *anything* to not exist.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Scientists do admit that there must be an organizer which keeps all the materia in proper order and the nature on this planet in balance, but doesn't straight out name the organizer as a designer or soul, or in other words, God. That's because science refrains to comment on beliefs or religion to stay as neutral as possible, and only examines the observable, material world.

Google or youtube "self organisation". Theres a good book in biology called "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" which details the latest discoveries in genetic and how this relates fo anatomical differences across species over time.

Web Extra: Evo Devo - YouTube

 

[juvenissun]

Let's say for arguments sake one god does indeed exist.

How would you identify which god it is?

Wrong question. It should be:
WHAT god it is?

The answer then depends on your specific question. For example: SHOULD the god make every human being have happy life forever? I guess the answer is no.

OK, you discovered one property of the god. What is the next?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wrong question. It should be:
WHAT god it is?

The answer then depends on your specific question. For example: SHOULD the god make every human being have happy life forever? I guess the answer is no.

OK, you discovered one property of the god. What is the next?

What? No. You haven't discovered anything at all. You've merely asked a question, guessed at an answer, and called it a "discovery."

 

[quatona]

For me the brain represents the

material link between the body and soul. DNA is also material, and materia in itself doesn't have the intelligence to create life and the perfect balance and symbiosis in the ecosystems.

Apart from being that your belief and your premise, do you have anything to substantiate this notion?

Soul is more important than materia for the existence as a whole. If there was not even one soul ever, not even time or the void alone that the universe floats in would have existed because there would have been nothing and no one to detect their existence, and thus they would have existed for nothing.

So, if I understand you correctly, you prefer to believe that which we have never observed (matter/energy emanating from spirit/soul/intelligence) over that which we observe all the time: Mind and intelligence emanating from matter/energy)?

The existence and continuity of souls is thus a necessity for existence of everything else.

Yes, that´s the conclusion your premises seem to force - once they´d been substantiated.

It gives universe a

reason and a meaning.

Which is completely irrelevant here.

I do appreciate science as it tries to feed our hunger for knowledge, which is definitely a noble goal. But Big Bang theory and the evolution theory are still just that – theories, because they don't have all the supportive evidence to make them 100% (of the) fact yet.

You don´t seem familiar with the scientific terminology.
Now, if we compare the scientific method and its findings to your approach here so far (unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable assertions spontaneously stacked upon each other) there isn´t much doubt in my mind which method is likely to produce more reliable results.

The Big Bang theory only starts from the point where the materia already existed, and does not much comment on where the energy came from to create the materia into the void for the Big Bang to happen later on.

So what? It´s explains exactly what it´s meant to explain. Why would you expect it to explain something that it isn´t meant to explain?

On top of it, no astronomer is able to explain where the center point of the great explosion located.

Indeed, there are a couple of things that science can´t explain yet (and imo some that it will never be able to explain, because they are not within science´s field).
Now, are you saying you have an explanation? Let´s see it, let´s scrutinize in the way science lends its results to scrutinity.

For the evolution theory to work, there must be a mechanism in living cells which adds more DNA to the DNA chain.

What?

But no one has been able to prove that yet, and mutation only changes or swaps DNA, it doesn't add it.

Sorry, but this sounds suspiciously like you have no expertise in this field.

Scientiests are also unable to explain the birth of a nucleus in a cell.

Personally, I wasn´t even aware that nucleuses are born (but I´m not a scientist either).
Ok, again: There are some things scientists can´t explain (yet).
What´s your point in harping on this undisputed fact?
Do you have an explanation?
Or is it more like this: Since there is no scientific explanation you feel that any non-explanatory wild guess you come up with will pass for an explanation?

Scientists do admit that there must be an organizer which keeps all the materia in proper order and the nature on this planet in balance,

I don´t think that this is scientific consensus.

but doesn't straight out name the organizer as a designer or soul, or in other words, God.

Now let´s assume it were scientific consensus that within the universe there must be one or several organizing forces (which I think comes much closer to what science says about it than your loaded paraphrasing), this surely wouldn´t point to a soul.
Furthermore, calling this force(s) "God" doesn´t explain anything - it´s just a space holder for "I don´t know what it is, I can´t explain it.".

That's because science refrains to comment on beliefs or religion to stay as neutral as possible, and only examines the observable, material world.

The reason science doesn´t refrain from metaphysical assumptions is not the quest for neutrality, but simply that these aren´t within its field.
You don´t seem to be aware, though, that "science can´t explain it" doesn´t lend any credence to any particular unsubstantiated wild guess.

Refraining from commenting the subject doesn't mean, however, that science denies the existence of souls, or God.

Indeed. So?

Besides, I would rather believe that there is a God and then find out there isn't, than not believe in God and then find out there is.

Why is that?

 

[quatona]

Btw:
Since you are so understandably dissatisfied with theories that do not explain the origin of everything, I am sure your hypothesis comes with an idea as to where this spirit behind matter and energy originated from. Can we hear it?

 

[Colter]

"The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts. If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit-born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine.

A mechanistic philosophy of life and the universe cannot be scientific because science recognizes and deals only with materials and facts. Philosophy is inevitably superscientific. Man is a material fact of nature, but his life is a phenomenon which transcends the material levels of nature in that it exhibits the control attributes of mind and the creative qualities of spirit.

The sincere effort of man to become a mechanist represents the tragic phenomenon of that man’s futile effort to commit intellectual and moral suicide. But he cannot do it."UB​

 

[quatona]

Yeah, Colter, isn´t it funny how the OP is based on a demand for a mechanistic (cause-effect) explanation to account for the existence of the Universe?
And there was me thinking I was the only one spotting it.

 

[Colter]

Yeah, Colter, isn´t it funny how the OP is based on a demand for a mechanistic (cause-effect) explanation to account for the existence of the Universe?
And there was me thinking I was the only one spotting it.

I see your point.

 

[Nithavela]

For me the brain represents the material link between the body and soul. DNA is also material, and materia in itself doesn't have the intelligence to create life and the perfect balance and symbiosis in the ecosystems.

Materia has a tendency to order itself according to physical laws. No intelligence required, crystals grow without someone putting them together with atom tweezers.

Soul is more important than materia for the existence as a whole. If there was not even one soul ever, not even time or the void alone that the universe floats in would have existed because there would have been nothing and no one to detect their existence, and thus they would have existed for nothing.

The detection of something is not neccessary for its existence. If no one knew about a meteorite floating towards earth, it could still hit you on the head.

The existence and continuity of souls is thus a necessity for existence of everything else. It gives universe a

reason and a meaning.

Please prove that the universe has a reason and/or a meaning.

I do appreciate science as it tries to feed our hunger for knowledge, which is definitely a noble goal. But Big Bang theory and the evolution theory are still just that – theories, because they don't have all the supportive evidence to make them 100% (of the) fact yet.

Your ignorance is showing.

The Big Bang theory only starts from the point where the materia already existed, and does not much comment on where the energy came from to create the materia into the void for the Big Bang to happen later on. On top of it, no astronomer is able to explain where the center point of the great explosion located.

The big bang started before the first energy was transformed into matter.

For the evolution theory to work, there must be a mechanism in living cells which adds more DNA to the DNA chain. But no one has been able to prove that yet, and mutation only changes or swaps DNA, it doesn't add it. Scientiests are also unable to explain the birth of a nucleus in a cell.

Maybe you should ask a biologist instead of a scientiest?

Scientists do admit that there must be an organizer which keeps all the materia in proper order and the nature on this planet in balance, but doesn't straight out name the organizer as a designer or soul, or in other words, God. That's because science refrains to comment on beliefs or religion to stay as neutral as possible, and only examines the observable, material world.

Now you're just lying. Come on, you can do better than that. Use more weasel words. I believe in you.

Refraining from commenting the subject doesn't mean, however, that science denies the existence of souls, or God. That's what people choose to do, not science itself.

Finally you are correct in something.

Besides, I would rather believe that there is a God and then find out there isn't, than not believe in God and then find out there is

Is this some sort of failed pascals wager?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I promised to shed some light over my theist philosophy, so here goes.

Rather than saying directly "God exists", it tries to prove it the opposite way: "It's impossible for God to not exist".

----------

For me the brain represents the material link between the body and soul. DNA is also material, and materia in itself doesn't have the intelligence to create life and the perfect balance and symbiosis in the ecosystems.

Soul is more important than materia for the existence as a whole. If there was not even one soul ever, not even time or the void alone that the universe floats in would have existed because there would have been nothing and no one to detect their existence, and thus they would have existed for nothing.


The existence and continuity of souls is thus a necessity for existence of everything else. It gives universe a reason and a meaning.

I do appreciate science as it tries to feed our hunger for knowledge, which is definitely a noble goal. But Big Bang theory and the evolution theory are still just that – theories, because they don't have all the supportive evidence to make them 100% (of the) fact yet.


The Big Bang theory only starts from the point where the materia already existed, and does not much comment on where the energy came from to create the materia into the void for the Big Bang to happen later on. On top of it, no astronomer is able to explain where the center point of the great explosion located.


For the evolution theory to work, there must be a mechanism in living cells which adds more DNA to the DNA chain. But no one has been able to prove that yet, and mutation only changes or swaps DNA, it doesn't add it. Scientiests are also unable to explain the birth of a nucleus in a cell.


Scientists do admit that there must be an organizer which keeps all the materia in proper order and the nature on this planet in balance, but doesn't straight out name the organizer as a designer or soul, or in other words, God. That's because science refrains to comment on beliefs or religion to stay as neutral as possible, and only examines the observable, material world.


Refraining from commenting the subject doesn't mean, however, that science denies the existence of souls, or God. That's what people choose to do, not science itself.

Besides, I would rather believe that there is a God and then find out there isn't, than not believe in God and then find out there is.

I've distilled your argument to a syllogism,

p1 - I have no understanding of cosmology or biology or neurology or the concept of emergence or basic logical fallacies
p2 - Pascal's Wager
c - Yahweh necessarily exists

 

[True Scotsman]

I've distilled your argument to a syllogism,

p1 - I have no understanding of cosmology or biology or neurology or the concept of emergence or basic logical fallacies
p2 - Pascal's Wager
c - Yahweh necessarily exists

Outstanding! I wish this forum had a like button. Consider the imaginary like button hit multiple times.